The replicability crisis is not a process problem, it is a fundamental epistemological issue, especially in “sciences” like psychology, sociology, economics, even cognitive science.
Since the early 20th century, every field of inquiry has sought to be like physics and chemistry, a form of intellectual certainty-envy.
So each field has hemmed itself within analytic frameworks where only calculable factors are accepted in the academy, and most if not all does not yield to computation due to confounding, emergence, etc.
We have to stop pretending that there is any idea of certainty in non-sciences. The only places where there is that level of precision are very specific scales and systems that change over massive time periods.
Non-replicability is likely a fundamental aspect of those fields, and is exploited for tenure, it is not a thing to be fixed via review processes.
Yes - and, or, we need to do a lot more in the development of frameworks to deal with things that are around symmetry-breaking, or "Teleonomic Matter" as David Krakauer is suggesting.
Is there a 7th camp of metascience: meta-metascience? Should there be?
In view of these questions, and the mentioning of open science and Registered Reports and such things in the post here, perhaps it's okay for me to share a title of a manuscript I wrote titled "Pre-registration, grocery lists, and particular pre-registration issues" that can be found on SSRN.
The only better thing than elite merch is elite meta-merch
The replicability crisis is not a process problem, it is a fundamental epistemological issue, especially in “sciences” like psychology, sociology, economics, even cognitive science.
Since the early 20th century, every field of inquiry has sought to be like physics and chemistry, a form of intellectual certainty-envy.
So each field has hemmed itself within analytic frameworks where only calculable factors are accepted in the academy, and most if not all does not yield to computation due to confounding, emergence, etc.
We have to stop pretending that there is any idea of certainty in non-sciences. The only places where there is that level of precision are very specific scales and systems that change over massive time periods.
Non-replicability is likely a fundamental aspect of those fields, and is exploited for tenure, it is not a thing to be fixed via review processes.
Yes - and, or, we need to do a lot more in the development of frameworks to deal with things that are around symmetry-breaking, or "Teleonomic Matter" as David Krakauer is suggesting.
Is there a 7th camp of metascience: meta-metascience? Should there be?
In view of these questions, and the mentioning of open science and Registered Reports and such things in the post here, perhaps it's okay for me to share a title of a manuscript I wrote titled "Pre-registration, grocery lists, and particular pre-registration issues" that can be found on SSRN.